Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.40E7537C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40E7537C" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: \chapter complications Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1991 18:36:30 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 322 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40E7537C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Barbara suggested \bodymatter (as apparently used by SGML people) as an alternative to the \middlematter used in one of Michael's = examples. The publishing gurus I mentioned in my last contribution use the terms: "The text" or "main text" (Williamson, p. 180) "The text" or "main book" (Butcher, pages 119 and 130) "Main text" (McLean, p. 157) "Text" (White, p. 159) "The text" or "text proper" (Chicago, pages 4 and 22) Would \maintext be worth considering as a command-name? (If we use = existing publishing-industry jargon rather than defining new jargon, the end-user gets spared the job of interpreting new jargon in terms of old jargon. Unless, of course, the publishing industry's jargon is in the process of changing, in which case we'd be better off using what they are changing = to.) = David ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40E7537C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: \chapter complications

Barbara suggested \bodymatter (as apparently used by = SGML people)
as an alternative to the \middlematter used in one of = Michael's examples.

The publishing gurus I mentioned in my last = contribution use the terms:
"The text" or "main text" = (Williamson, p. 180)
"The text" or "main book" = (Butcher, pages 119 and 130)
"Main text" (McLean, p. 157)
"Text" (White, p. 159)
"The text" or "text proper" = (Chicago, pages 4 and 22)

Would \maintext be worth considering as a = command-name?  (If we use existing
publishing-industry jargon rather than defining new = jargon, the end-user
gets spared the job of interpreting new jargon in = terms of old jargon.
Unless, of course, the publishing industry's jargon = is in the process of
changing, in which case we'd be better off using what = they are changing to.)

          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        David

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40E7537C--